DOCSLIB.ORG

Come Clean About Beauty 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Come Clean About Beauty 2 COME CLEAN ABOUT BEAUTY 2 Executive Summary Greenwashing is rife in the health and beauty industry, despite previous Soil Association campaigns which have raised awareness of this problem amongst brands and consumers. Our new investigation has produced a league table of uncertified products which are us- ing the term organic on the labels, and consumer research which provides clear evidence that people feel misled by this. We’re calling on brands to Come Clean About Beauty labelling and use the terms organic and natural responsibly or not at all. We found a range of uncertified health and beauty products with potentially misleading labels which use the terms organic or natural. We showed some of these labels to an independent panel of 1,000 consumers and the majority (76%) said they felt misled when they found out the product was not certified and would not meet organic standards. When they discovered this, most people (72%) also said they would lose trust in the brand. Scope We have not been able to do a comprehensive survey of all beauty products, but our limited research found 13 products from eight different brands that have labels which could suggest to consumers that they are wholly or mainly organic, yet are not independently certified. Several of these products are from brands with one or more ranges which are all labelled in a way that consumers said they found misleading. This means there are hundreds or even thousands of products for sale on UK high streets which make organic claims but contain ingredients which would not be permitted in a certified organic product. We are clear that risking misleading consumers in such a sensitive area as beauty products, even in one case, is completely unacceptable. The confusing terms on the labels we encountered suggest that it is often very difficult for consumers to know they are making the right choice when doing their shopping. The halo effect Our research findings show a direct link between what is on the pack and what people say they think about a product. It is clear from the results of this survey that the use of the word organic on the label has a positive effect on what people think about the whole of the product – with most consumers saying they would assume an organic product was sus- tainably made and that they were doing the right thing for the environment by choosing it. Some of the labels state that one or more ingredients are organic in a way which suggests positive attributes for the rest of the product. While it is obviously a good thing for a manufacturer to be using any organic ingredients, we do not think it is right for companies to highlight that particular organic ingredient on the front of the packaging when only a very small amount is actually present in the product. The majority of people (77%) said they would feel reassured if the product was certified organic and carried a verified symbol. We think that brands know this, because a number of them use a logo of some form or another on their labels, to describe the presence of organic ingredients. Consumers also told us they would think more positively about the brand if the product was genuinely certified organic. Brands and retailers should take note Consumers clearly told us that the misuse of the term organic damages their faith in brands and the retailers that sell them. Most people (72%) said they would lose trust in the brand if they found out that a product which said organic on the label was not certified and could not meet organic standards. 64% of people said they would lose trust in the retailer. The majority of people (69%) also felt strongly that this sort of misleading labelling should be against the law. However the product labels and the ingredients they contain are all legal. While the term organic is regulated in relation to food and drink on sale in the UK and the EU, there is no legislation in place for the use of the terms organic and natural in relation to health and beauty products. We want to change this, so we are asking people to sign our petition which calls on the brands in our league table to truly Come Clean About Beauty and use the terms organic or natural responsibly or not at all. 4 Price is not an issue We found that certified organic products often cost less per 100ml than the uncertified products which are making organic and natural claims. For nine out of the 13 products included here we found a certified organic alternative which costs less per 100ml. Even for the four products where the organic alternative costs more, the difference in price is £1.50 per 100ml or less. By contrast, one of the uncertified products which claims to be organic costs £7.22 more per 100ml than a certified organic alternative. In the Product Profiles section of this report, we suggest a certified organic alternative for each of the products featured. The basis of these suggestions is that the products are widely available in the UK at a competitive price and independently certified to a recognised standard. We are not saying these products contain similar ingredients or function in exactly the same way; they are simply suggestions of certified organic alternatives that consumers might like to consider. Ingredients which would not be permitted in a certified organic product This report contains a snapshot of the products we found which contain ingredients that would not be permitted by an independent international organic and natural health and beauty standard such as COSMOS. When we had identified these ingredients, they were assessed by an independent expert toxicologist who advised us of their potential impacts in wider use on human health and the environment. Together we came up with the Terrible Ten – a list of ten ingredients which consumers should look out for – and which would never be permitted in a certified organic product. There are European standards which require all ingredients used in cosmetic products to be safe, and limits for the amounts of some ingredients which can be used are set to ensure this. So we are not suggesting that the inclusion of any of these ingredients in the products listed means that those products are unsafe. We are talking about the impacts that some of these ingredients have been found to have in wider use – that is when used in higher doses and other product types or applications. Organic standards aim to encourage the use of ingredients which are organic, sustainable and biodegradable, and most consumers said they felt misled when they found out that products which claim to be organic contained ingredients which would not be permitted in a certified product. This shows that the brands which are doing this are in danger of exploiting the reassurance that consumers seek when they choose an organic product. The majority of people (74%) told us they would feel like they were choosing a product which was free from nasties if it said organic on the label. Consumers who want to protect themselves from greenwashing claims such as these should look for a genuine logo which proves the product has been independently certified. For example, the COSMOS or the Soil Association, Natrue and NSF-ANSI all have strict standards for beauty products, and would not allow a chemical on the Terrible Ten list to be used in a certified product. The Terrible Ten Our research found the following Terrible Ten ingredients in health and beauty products which mention organic on the label, but are not certified organic: 1. Ethyl hexylsalicylate 2. Homosalate 3. Imidazolidinyl urea 4. Octinoxate 5. Octocrylene 6. PEGs: PEG-7; PEG-12; PEG-40; PEG-200 7. Polyquaternium 7 8. Polysorbate 20 9. Red 17 artificial colour 26100 10. Retinyl palmitate The ingredients are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the possible effects of each of the ingredients, and the products in which we found them, is included in Section 4 of this report. Research methodology We worked with an independent researcher to find health and beauty products which claim to be organic, but are not independently certified. We reviewed the ingredients panel for each product and identified whether there were any ingredients which would not be permitted in a certified organic product, using the international COSMOS standard as a benchmark. We then worked with a leading independent toxicologist, Emeritus Professor Vyvyan Howard, to identify the Terrible Ten ingredients found in these, and other non-organic products, which are chemicals that in general use are potentially most harmful to human health and the environment. Following this we undertook some independent consumer research. The researchers spoke to 1000 women across the UK between the ages of 18-65, and a nationally representative sample of socio-demographic grades, employment status and regional representation. All participants were regular buyers and users of a wide range of everyday health and beauty products from body or face washes to after sun creams or sprays. The research was conducted online by market research and brand building company, The Crow Flies Ltd., between 31st March and 4th April 2017. 6 Contents 1. Come Clean About Beauty League Table: This shows the 13 uncertified health and beauty products we found which are labelled in ways that could mislead consumers, and contain undesirable ingredients, including those from the Terrible Ten. 2. Product profiles: Details of the products we found which we think are labelled in ways that could mislead consumers because they mention organic ingredients or use organic on their main labels, yet contain ingredients which would not be permitted in independently certified organic products.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Effects of Selected Polysorbate and Sucrose Ester Emulsifiers on the Physicochemical Properties of Astaxanthin Nanodispersions
    Molecules 2013, 18, 768-777; doi:10.3390/molecules18010768 OPEN ACCESS molecules ISSN 1420-3049 www.mdpi.com/journal/molecules Article Effects of Selected Polysorbate and Sucrose Ester Emulsifiers on the Physicochemical Properties of Astaxanthin Nanodispersions Navideh Anarjan 1,2 and Chin Ping Tan 1,* 1 Department of Food Technology, Faculty of Food Science and Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia; E-Mail: [email protected] 2 Young Researchers and Elites Club, East Azarbaijan Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, 15655/461, Tabriz, Iran * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +603-8946-8418; Fax: +603-8942-3552. Received: 7 December 2012; in revised form: 28 December2012 / Accepted: 31 December 2012 / Published: 9 January 2013 Abstract: The effects of selected nonionic emulsifiers on the physicochemical characteristics of astaxanthin nanodispersions produced by an emulsification/evaporation technique were studied. The emulsifiers used were polysorbates (Polysorbate 20, Polysorbate 40, Polysorbate 60 and Polysorbate 80) and sucrose esters of fatty acids (sucrose laurate, palmitate, stearate and oleate). The mean particle diameters of the nanodispersions ranged from 70 nm to 150 nm, depending on the emulsifier used. In the prepared nanodispersions, the astaxanthin particle diameter decreased with increasing emulsifier hydrophilicity and decreasing carbon number of the fatty acid in the emulsifier structure. Astaxanthin nanodispersions with the smallest particle diameters were produced with Polysorbate 20 and sucrose laurate among the polysorbates and the sucrose esters, respectively. We also found that the Polysorbate 80- and sucrose oleate-stabilized nanodispersions had the highest astaxanthin losses (i.e., the lowest astaxanthin contents in the final products) among the nanodispersions.
    [Show full text]
  • Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions Caused by Drug Excipients: a Literature Review Caballero ML, Quirce S
    REVIEWS Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions Caused by Drug Excipients: A Literature Review Caballero ML, Quirce S Department of Allergy, La Paz University Hospital, IdiPAZ, Madrid, Spain J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2020; Vol. 30(2): 86-100 doi: 10.18176/jiaci.0476 Abstract The European Medicines Agency defines excipients as the constituents of a pharmaceutical form apart from the active substance. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) caused by excipients contained in the formulation of medications have been described. However, there are no data on the prevalence of IHRs due to drug excipients. Clinical manifestations of allergy to excipients can range from skin disorders to life-threatening systemic reactions. The aim of this study was to review the literature on allergy to pharmaceutical excipients and to record the IHRs described with various types of medications, specifically reactions due to the excipients contained in their formulations. The cases reported were sorted alphabetically by type of medication and excipient in order to obtain a list of the excipients most frequently involved for each type of medication. Key words: Allergy. Drug immediate hypersensitivity reaction. Excipient. Pharmaceutical excipients. Resumen La Agencia Europea de Medicamentos define los excipientes como los componentes de una forma farmacéutica diferenciados del principio activo. Se han descrito reacciones de hipersensibilidad inmediata causadas por los excipientes contenidos en la formulación de medicamentos. Sin embargo, no hay datos sobre la prevalencia de dichas reacciones. Las manifestaciones clínicas de la alergia a los excipientes pueden ir desde trastornos de la piel hasta reacciones sistémicas que ponen en peligro la vida. El objetivo de este estudio fue realizar una revisión de la literatura sobre la alergia a los excipientes farmacéuticos y recopilar las reacciones inmediatas descritas con diferentes tipos de medicamento, debido solo a excipientes contenidos en sus formulaciones.
    [Show full text]
  • Polysorbates 20, 60, 65 and 80)
    Original: Japanese Provisional translation Evaluation Report of Food Additives Polysorbates (Polysorbates 20, 60, 65 and 80) June 2007 Food Safety Commission Contents History of deliberation.......................................................................................................1 Members of the Food Safety Commission.........................................................................1 Expert members of the Expert Committee on Food Additives, Food Safety Commission.…………1 Evaluation results on the Health Risk Assessment of Polysorbate 20, Polysorbate 60, Polysorbate 65 and Polysorbate 80 as food additives...................................................................................................2 Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 2 1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Background...................................................................................................................................... 3 3. Outline of the designation of food additives.................................................................................... 3 4. Name, etc. ........................................................................................................................................ 3 (1) Polysorbate 20 ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Polysorbate 20 Polysorbate 65 Polysorbate 21 Polysorbate 80 Polysorbate 40 Polysorbate 81 Polysorbate 60 Polysorbate 85 Polysorbate 61
    Safety Assessment of Polysorbates as Used in Cosmetics Status: Tentative Amended Report for Public Comment Release Date: March 31, 2015 Panel Meeting Date: June 15-16, 2015 All interested persons are provided 60 days from the above date to comment on this safety assessment and to identify additional published data that should be included or provide unpublished data which can be made public and included. Information may be submitted without identifying the source or the trade name of the cosmetic product containing the ingredient. All unpublished data submitted to CIR will be discussed in open meetings, will be available at the CIR office for review by any interested party and may be cited in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Please submit data, comments, or requests to the CIR Director, Dr. Lillian J. Gill. The 2015 Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel members are: Chair, Wilma F. Bergfeld, M.D., F.A.C.P.; Donald V. Belsito, M.D.; Ronald A. Hill, Ph.D.; Curtis D. Klaassen, Ph.D.; Daniel C. Liebler, Ph.D.; James G. Marks, Jr., M.D.; Ronald C. Shank, Ph.D.; Thomas J. Slaga, Ph.D.; and Paul W. Snyder, D.V.M., Ph.D. The CIR Director is Lillian J. Gill, D.P.A. This report was prepared by Lillian C. Becker, Scientific Analyst/Writer. © Cosmetic Ingredient Review 1620 L Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20036-4702 ph 202.331.0651 fax 202.331.0088 [email protected] ABSTRACT This is a safety assessment of polysorbates as used in cosmetics. These ingredients mostly function as surfactants in cosmetics.
    [Show full text]
  • Material Safety Data Sheet
    341 Christian Street, Oxford, CT 06478 USA Tel: (203) 267-6061 Fax: (203) 267-6065 www.naturalsourcing.com [email protected] MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET POLYSORBATE 20 MSDS 1. PRODUCT NAME AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION Product Name: POLYSORBATE 20 Product Use: Personal Care Formulations – Non-Ionic Surfactant Company Name: Natural Sourcing Company Address: 341 Christian Street, Oxford, CT 06478, USA Date Issued: 7/24/2008 Emergency Telephone Number: Chemtrec Tel: (800) 262-8200 2. COMPOSITION/INGREDIENT INFORMATION Chemical Identity: Polysorbate 20, Poe (20) Sorbitan monolaurate Formula: Ethoxylation of reaction between sorbitol and lauric acid Components: CAS No % (w/w) OSHA PEL ACGIH TLV Polyoxyethylene (20) Sorbitan monolaurate 9005-64-5 97-100 Not established Not established Ingredients not precisely identified are proprietary or nonhazardous. Values are not product specifications. Exposure Limits: N/A CAS #: 9005-64-5 3. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION HMIS Rating: Health: 0 Flammability: 1 Reactivity: 0 NO HAZARDS ARE KNOWN TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURES TO THIS PRODUCT. Limited toxicity data are available on this specific product; this hazard assessment is based on the results of screening tests. Routes of Entry: • Eyes • Skin • Ingestion • Inhalation Eye Contact: No irritation is likely to develop following contact with eyes. Skin Contact: No irritation is likely to develop following contact with skin. This product will probably not be absorbed through human skin. Ingestion: Low oral toxicity, but ingestion may cause irritation of the gastrointestinal tract. No toxic effects are expected following ingestion of this product. Inhalation: No irritation is expected to be associated with inhalation of this material. No toxic effects are known to be associated with inhalation of vapors from this material.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Assessment of Polysorbates As Used in Cosmetics
    Safety Assessment of Polysorbates as Used in Cosmetics Status: Draft Final Amended Report for Panel Review Release Date: May 22, 2015 Panel Meeting Date: June 15-16, 2015 The 2015 Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel members are: Chair, Wilma F. Bergfeld, M.D., F.A.C.P.; Donald V. Belsito, M.D.; Ronald A. Hill, Ph.D.; Curtis D. Klaassen, Ph.D.; Daniel C. Liebler, Ph.D.; James G. Marks, Jr., M.D.; Ronald C. Shank, Ph.D.; Thomas J. Slaga, Ph.D.; and Paul W. Snyder, D.V.M., Ph.D. The CIR Director is Lillian J. Gill, D.P.A. This report was prepared by Lillian C. Becker, Scientific Analyst/Writer. © Cosmetic Ingredient Review 1620 L Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20036-4702 ph 202.331.0651 fax 202.331.0088 [email protected] Commitment & Credibility since 1976 MEMORANDUM To: CIR Expert Panel and Liaisons From: Lillian C. Becker, M.S. Scientific Analyst and Writer Date: May 22, 2015 Subject: Draft Final Amended Report of Polysorbates as Used in Cosmetics Attached is the draft final amended report of Polysorbates as used in cosmetics. [PSorba_062015_Rep] In March, 2015, the Panel issued a tentative amended report with a conclusion of safe as used when formulated to be nonirritating. This safety assessment combined 3 previous reports and added new polysorbate ingredients. There were three polysorbate ingredients reported in the VCRP but were not listed in the Dictionary (PEG-20 sorbitan laurate, PEG-20 sorbitan stearate, and PEG-30 sorbitan beeswax). The Council has asserted that PEG-20 sorbitan laurate is another term for polysorbate 20 and PEG-20 sorbitan stearate is another term for polysorbate 60.
    [Show full text]
  • Inert Reassessment - Members of the Sorbitan Fatty Acid Esters and The
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASIiINGTON, D.C. 20460 DATE: May 20,2005 ACTION MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Inert Reassessment - Members of the Sorbitan Fatty Acid Esters and the FROM: sponse Branch TO: Lois A. Rossi, Director Registration Division I. FQPA REASSESSMENT ACTION Action: Reassessment of six inert ingredient exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. The six tolerance exemptions are to be maintained. Chemicals: CFR Reference Number 40 CFR Tolerance Exemption Expression Limits Uses exemptions ** 1 180.920 Poly(oxyethylene)(5) sorbitan monooleate (none) Surfactants, related adjuvants of surfactants 1 180.910 Polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan (none) Surfactants, related adjuvants monostearate of surfactants 1 180.920 Polysorbate 60, conformng to 21 CFR (none) Surfactant 172.836 1 180.910 Polysorbate 65, conforming to 21 CFR (none) Emulsifier 172.838, CFR Reference Number 40 CFR Tolerance Exemption Expression Limits Uses exemptions ** Sorbitan fatty acid esters (fatty acids (none) Surfactants, related adjuvants limited to C12, C14, C16, and C18 of surfactants containing minor amounts of associated fatty acids) and their derivatives; the poly(oxyethy1ene) content averages 5-20 moles. 180.930 Sorbitan fatty acid esters (fatty acids (none) Buffering agent, corrosion limited to C12, C14, C16, and C18 inhibition 1 containing minor amounts of associated fatty acids) and their poly(oxyethy1ene) derivatives of sorbitan fatty acid esters; the poly(oxyethy1ene) content averages 16-20 moles. **Residues listed in 40 CFR 180.910 (formerly 180.1001(c)) are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used in accordance with good agricultural practice as inert (or occasionally active) ingredients in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest.
    [Show full text]
  • Polysorbates 20 and 80 Used in the Formulation of Protein Biotherapeutics: Structure and Degradation Pathways
    Polysorbates 20 and 80 Used in the Formulation of Protein Biotherapeutics: Structure and Degradation Pathways BRUCE A. KERWIN Department of Pharmaceutics, Amgen Inc., One Amgen Center Dr., Thousand Oaks, California 91320 Received 14 June 2007; revised 9 August 2007; accepted 8 September 2007 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/jps.21190 1 1 ABSTRACT: Polysorbates 20 and 80 (Tween 20 and Tween 80) are used in the formulation of biotherapeutic products for both preventing surface adsorption and as stabilizers against protein aggregation. The polysorbates are amphipathic, nonionic surfactants composed of fatty acid esters of polyoxyethylene sorbitan being polyoxyethy- lene sorbitan monolaurate for polysorbate 20 and polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate for polysorbate 80. The polysorbates used in the formulation of biopharmaceuticals are mixtures of different fatty acid esters with the monolaurate fraction of polysorbate 20 making up only 40–60% of the mixture and the monooleate fraction of polysorbate 80 making up >58% of the mixture. The polysorbates undergo autooxidation, cleavage at the ethylene oxide subunits and hydrolysis of the fatty acid ester bond. Autooxidation results in hydroperoxide formation, side-chain cleavage and eventually formation of short chain acids such as formic acid all of which could influence the stability of a biopharmaceutical product. Oxidation of the fatty acid moiety while well described in the literature has not been specifically investigated for polysorbate. This review focuses on the chemical structure of the polysorbates, factors influencing micelle formation and factors and excipients influencing stability and degradation of the polyoxyethylene and fatty acid ester linkages. ß 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Information for the Package Leaflet Regarding Polysorbates Used As Excipients in Medicinal Products for Human Use EMA/CHMP/190743/2016 Page 2/42
    1 19 November 2018 2 EMA/CHMP/190743/2016 3 Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) 4 Information for the package leaflet regarding 5 polysorbates used as excipients in medicinal products for 6 human use 7 Draft Draft agreed by Excipients Drafting group 1 August 2018 Adopted by CHMP for release for consultation 20 September 2018 Start of public consultation 19 November 2018 End of consultation (deadline for comments) 31 May 2019 Agreed by Excipients Drafting group <Month YYYY> Adopted by CHMP <DD Month YYYY> Date of publication <DD Month YYYY> 8 9 Comments should be provided using this template. The completed comments form should be sent to [email protected] 10 Keywords Excipients, Package leaflet, Polysorbates 11 12 30 Churchill Place ● Canary Wharf ● London E14 5EU ● United Kingdom Telephone +44 (0)20 3660 6000 Facsimile +44 (0)20 3660 5555 Send a question via our website www.ema.europa.eu/contact An agency of the European Union © European Medicines Agency, 2018. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 13 Information for the package leaflet regarding 14 polysorbates used as excipients in medicinal products for 15 human use 16 Table of contents 17 Executive summary ..................................................................................... 3 18 Proposal for updated information in the package leaflet ............................. 5 19 Scientific background .................................................................................. 7 20 Introduction ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Physical and Biological Effects of Modified Polysorbate 20 Kevin Penfield Croda Inc
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln West Central Research and Extension Center, North Agricultural Research Division of IANR Platte 2015 Physical and Biological Effects of Modified Polysorbate 20 Kevin Penfield Croda Inc. Bryan Young Southern Illinois University Julie K. Young Southern Illinois University, [email protected] Greg R. Kruger University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected] Ryan Henry University of Nebraska - Lincoln See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/westcentresext Part of the Agriculture Commons, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, and the Plant Sciences Commons Penfield, Kevin; Young, Bryan; Young, Julie K.; Kruger, Greg R.; Henry, Ryan; and Lindner, Greg, "Physical and Biological Effects of Modified Polysorbate 20" (2015). West Central Research and Extension Center, North Platte. 96. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/westcentresext/96 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Agricultural Research Division of IANR at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in West Central Research and Extension Center, North Platte by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors Kevin Penfield, Bryan Young, Julie K. Young, Greg R. Kruger, Ryan Henry, and Greg Lindner This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/westcentresext/96 PESTICIDE
    [Show full text]
  • Quality Control Methods for Medicinal Plant Materials
    Quality control methods for medicinal plant materials World Health Organization Geneva The World Health Organization was established in 1948 as a specialized agency of the United Nations serving as the directing and coordinating authority for international health matters and public health. One of WHO's constitutional functions is to provide objective and reliable information and advice in the field of human health, a responsibility that it fulfils in part through its extensive programme of publications. The Organization seeks through its publications to support national health strategies and address the most pressing public health concerns of populations around the world. To respond to the needs of Member States at all levels of development, WHO publishes practical manuals, handbooks and training material for specific categories of health workers; internationally applicable guidelines and standards; reviews and analyses of health policies, programmes and research; and state-of-the-art consensus reports that offer technical advice and recommendations for decision-makers. These books are closely tied to the Organization's priority activities, encompassing disease prevention and control, the development of equitable health systems based on primary health care, and health promotion for individuals and communities. Progress towards better health for all also demands the global dissemination and exchange of information that draws on the knowledge and experience of all WHO's Member countries and the collaboration of world leaders in public health and the biomedical sciences. To ensure the widest possible availability of authoritative information and guidance on health matters, WHO secures the broad international distribution of its publications and encourages their translation and adaptation.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Polysorbate-Compound Interactions Within the CMC Region 2 Laura J
    1 Understanding polysorbate-compound interactions within the CMC region 2 Laura J. Watersa*, Oliver E. P. Smitha, William Smallb and Steve Mellorb 3 a School of Applied Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield, HD1 4 3DH, UK, b Croda Europe Ltd, Cowick Hall, Snaith, Goole, DN14 9AA 5 *Corresponding author: [email protected] 6 7 Abstract 8 Non-ionic surfactants such as polysorbates, known as Tween™ 20 and Tween™ 80, are 9 routinely used within the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry to enhance solubility. This 10 work focuses on analysing the two aforementioned polysorbates, each considered at three 11 purity levels with four model compounds, across the critical micellar concentration (CMC) 12 range for each surfactant. Such data is of interest to investigate the influence of micelle 13 formation upon compound-polysorbate interaction. Two analytical techniques were utilised, 14 namely spectroscopic solubility determination and micellar liquid chromatography (MLC). In 15 all cases it was apparent that the maximum solubility for all four compounds increased 16 substantially at concentrations greater than the CMC and that, in most cases, a different 17 retention profile was observed using MLC once the CMC had been exceeded. This paper is the 18 first to have used such techniques to investigate the behaviour of these polysorbates over a 19 series of concentrations and three levels of polysorbate purity. The findings indicate that the 20 solubilisation potential of polysorbates differs once the CMC has been surpassed and is 21 dependent upon the level of purity selected, i.e. compound-surfactant interactions are partially 22 a consequence of the presence of micelles rather than monomer as well as polysorbate purity.
    [Show full text]